The cautious character of the budget has strengthened the prevalent impression that the Prime Minister, Mr Macmillan, has firmly decided against a general election this year. Ministers have dropped hints that May, 1964, is the most likely date for the polls. This is, however, not likely to set at rest even temporarily the question of succession to Mr Macmillan. Mr Macmillan will be 70 early next year and it is most unlikely that he would want to lead the Conservative party for another term of five years in office or opposition. On the present reckoning the second possibility of the Conservative party being in opposition seems more realistic.
The choice of the successor to Mr Macmillan as leader of the Conservative party would have to be settled by the end of the year to give him and the party time to project this image to the nation. This is an interesting point principally because it points to the steadily increasing importance of the party leaders not only in shaping policies but in influencing the verdict of the electorate. Political commentators here are generally agreed that the voters are influenced at least as much by the personality of the leader as the programme of the party.
The Prime Minister in this country today is no longer only the first among equals in the cabinet. In popular parlance he is the boss. All major policy decisions rest with him. He listens to the advice of cabinet colleagues but the decision has to be his own. After the cabinet reshuffle of last year, unprecedented in peace time Britain, some of the leading commentators went so far as to say that in practice the parliamentary system had almost become indistinguishable from the presidential system.
Muzzled
To some extent the commentators were influenced by the analogy of loss of power by Parliament. Mr Richard Crossman, one of the leading intellectuals of the Labour party, has, for instance, been consistently hammering away at the theme that the authority of Parliament had been usurped by the party caucuses on both the treasury and opposition benches. It has not been easy to controvert this view because in recent years even on non-political issues like the death penalty, dissident opinion has been muzzled by party whips. From the primacy of the party caucus to the primacy of the leader was a short step. So the political pundits said.
Recently in its editorial on the imprisonment of the two “silent” journalists, entitled “It is Happening Here”, The Times wrote in the same refrain. It said: “In a quiet way very much is going seriously wrong. The executive has taken over power from parliament. It rules, or fails to rule, by a tacit agreement with outside forces in the community that their authority shall also not be challenged. The administrators at all levels decide more and more without citizens having effective redress. Many ways of thought in the law are restrictive, secretive and hamper efforts to preserve the true public interests.”
This increase in the power of the executive and decline in that of Parliament is perhaps inevitable to a large extent in view of the complexity of the tasks of government today. The modern means of communication, particularly television, have also tended to emphasise the role of the individual leader. It remains to be seen whether the present elevation of the British Prime Minister to a level far above that of his cabinet colleagues has become a permanent feature of British political life or whether it was incidental to the personality of Mr Macmillan. As an illustration it seems unlikely that either Mr Butler or Mr Maudling can be as ruthless as Mr Macmillan whereas Mr Edward Heath possesses a single-mindedness of purpose which is almost frightening.
Mr Wilson
In the, case of the Labour party there has been a change in the method of leadership along with the change of the incumbent. The late Mr Hugh Gaitskell, though warm and sociable, was at odds with one or other section of the party throughout the period of his leadership because of his determination to stamp his views and personality on it. Mr Harold Wilson, though rather aloof and inclined to keep his own counsel, has reverted to what is known here as the Attlee method of leadership. Lord Attlee is known as one of the best committee chairmen ever. At least he gave the impression of leading from behind, more often reconciling diverse opinions in the party than forcing down his own.
Though the general election is more than a year away, the election campaign has been on for over a month. It was launched by Mr Harold Wilson immediately after his election as leader of the party in a series of fierce onslaughts on the Prime Minister and the record of his government. In a sense Mr Wilson’s visit to Washington to confer with President Kennedy, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Defence Secretary McNamara and a host of advisers to the administration was part of the election campaign.
For the first time in many years, the Labour party is on the offensive. To place this fact in proper perspective it must be said that this phase began under Mr Gaitskell on the issue of Britain’s entry into the Common Market at the party conference last autumn. For months the tide of public opinion has been running in its favour.
The Conservative party is in disarray. Discontent has continued to simmer against Mr Macmillan. To what extent the expansionist, though cautious, budget will take care of the morale of the party remains to be seen. But the extravagant praise that the party whip and Lord Hailsham have felt it necessary to lavish on the Prime Minister is indicative of the discontent in the party. Lord Hailsham compared Mr Macmillan with Moses. The chief whip provided Mr Macmillan with the testimony that he had never and would never in future let the party down. Similarly, the speculation about the election of a new party chairman in place of Mr McLeod refuses to be laid to rest.
In spite of all these difficulties, the government under Mr Macmillan would not act as a caretaker administration during the life of this Parliament. He seems determined to complete the process of winding up the empire in Africa. Kenya is firmly on the way to independence. The liquidation of the Central African Federation is a matter of months. This would prepare the ground for the independence of Northern and Southern Rhodesias and Nyasaland within the Commonwealth. It would be the crowning achievement of his political career if he can end the minority rule of the settlers in Southern Rhodesia before allowing it to become an independent State.
The settlers in Southern Rhodesia have no option if the British government remains firm. Once the Federation is liquidated, its economic well-being will become dependent on the goodwill of Northern Rhodesia. Economic links with Northern Rhodesia are vital for Southern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia’s co-operation is indispensable to Southern Rhodesia, but cannot be guaranteed even if it can be secured, which is a very big if, unless the settlers agree to share power with the African majority.
The Alternative
In theory the alternative for Southern Rhodesia is to join the Republic of South Africa. This option will not be open to it unless it becomes independent which means unless the British Government gives in to the pressure of the settlers. Even in the event of independence, it would remain debatable, as The Guardian put it last Tuesday, whether South Africa would be willing to take Southern Rhodesia as a province. “Not only the black-white ratio but the English-Afrikaner ratio would thereby be altered to South Africa’s disadvantage, and not even Dr Verwoerd would enjoy the prospects of disenfranchising non-whites a second time”.
On the disbandment of the Federation Southern Rhodesia would not have the resources to take on the burden of maintaining the Federal security forces. This would reduce the Government’s capacity to suppress the growing African nationalist movement. Mr Macmillan and Mr Butler know all this and they are not likely to be frightened by the outbursts of either the Federal Prime Minister, Sir Roy Welensky, or Southern Rhodesia’s Prime Minister, Mr Winston Field. The adroitness with which they have moved in the past one year is truly remarkable. Sixty Conservative MPs’ might raise a banner of revolt against them but that would prove ineffectual. The British youth is fed up with talk of the empire and white domination. Suez more than Indian independence seems to have been turning point for them.
The Times of India, 6 April 1963